More Recent Comments

Tuesday, January 01, 2008

You Think *You* Have a Tough Job? ....

 


[Hat Tip: Canadian Cynic]

11 comments :

Timothy V Reeves said...

A test tube full of faith? Yeah, you don't have to tell me - even more difficult than trying to get a test tube full of history.

Anonymous said...

For the creationist geology crowd, it's more like a thin section full of faith -- and that's even trickier. I've made a few thin sections myself and had an expert technician make many more for me; inevitably they turn out to be very thin, translucent slices of rock glued to slides. No faith involved.

(Those of us doing non-creationist geology use thin sections to identify mineral crystals and mineral chemistry in rocks.)

Poor cregeologists.

Steve LaBonne said...

Right Timothy, because, you know, we can't be certain Julius Caesar actually lived- nobody now alive has ever seen him!

Are you really this stupid?

Timothy V Reeves said...

Steve said…

Right Timothy, you know we can’t be certain Jesus Christ actually lived – nobody alive has ever seen him! Are you really this stupid?

This stupid? Hahahaha! Nearly so, but not quite! I realize, as I know you do, that complex cognitive objects like history, evolution, our view of other personalities and society, and especially the activity of science itself, are much bigger than any evidential effects they might leave in a test tube or on the retina! In one sense we actually ‘see’ nothing at all, but only the samples or evidential traces left by the myriad objects that flit past our small window of perception, and even then those evidential traces rapidly pass into memory, text and history! Everything is a composition of fragile mental constructions highlighted here and there by fleeting historical memories, and texts. The necessary incompleteness of our mental constructions gives them a vulnerability that can be exploited by charlatans and quacks as they try filling in the blank spaces between the ‘protocols or perception’ in favour of their own concepts - this especially applies to evolution, it seems. It’s ironic that I, as a theist, should find myself supporting Larry’s position against other theists!

Anonymous said...

Somehow, Isaac Newton, Greg Mendel, Maxwell, Faraday, Linaeus, and other scientists who believed in design had no problem whatsoever between their CHRISTIAN faith and their fantastic science.

This conflict between "science and Christianity" must be, according to the evidence, a myth.

Larry Moran said...

mats says,

This conflict between "science and Christianity" must be, according to the evidence, a myth.

Since I'm not a Christian, I don't see any personal conflict.

Mats, you are a Christian and you obviously have a problem with science. Why do you think your problem is a "myth"?

The Key Question said...

Somehow, Isaac Newton, Greg Mendel, Maxwell, Faraday, Linaeus, and other scientists who believed in design had no problem whatsoever between their CHRISTIAN faith and their fantastic science.

This conflict between "science and Christianity" must be, according to the evidence, a myth.


Wow you are right, the conflict is a total myth.

Since there is no conflict between science and Christianity, there is no need for you to come here to debate anything.

After all, to you Christianity is always right, thus by definition science is always right and if you disagree with science, you are wrong. Plain and simple.

Anonymous said...

Larry,
mats says,

This conflict between "science and Christianity" must be, according to the evidence, a myth.


Since I'm not a Christian, I don't see any personal conflict.

There is no conflict, as it can be seen by the overwhelming Christian presence among the scientists in the Scientific Revolution.


Mats, you are a Christian and you obviously have a problem with science. Why do you think your problem is a "myth"?

I have no problems with science. I have a problem with atheistic myths (darwinism) that are made in the name of science.

Lim Leng Hiong said

Somehow, Isaac Newton, Greg Mendel, Maxwell, Faraday, Linaeus, and other scientists who believed in design had no problem whatsoever between their CHRISTIAN faith and their fantastic science.

This conflict between "science and Christianity" must be, according to the evidence, a myth.


Wow you are right, the conflict is a total myth.

I am glad we agree.


Since there is no conflict between science and Christianity, there is no need for you to come here to debate anything.

The fact that I come in here is no evidence that I believe that there is a conflict between Science and Christianity.


After all, to you Christianity is always right

I would rather say: God is always right.

thus by definition science is always right and if you disagree with science, you are wrong. Plain and simple.


huh?!!

Anonymous said...

mats says,

"I would rather say: God is always right."

To assertions like that, there's really NOTHING a scientist could say but sigh. Science is based on facts and experimental evidences, never on blind beliefs and assertions. I guess that could be a comflict between science and general religion?

The Key Question said...

huh?!!

Yes, the truth is that simple. You are wrong, by your own definition. There is no conflict between Christianity and Science, only conflict between Science and you.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous disse...


mats says,

"I would rather say: God is always right."

To assertions like that, there's really NOTHING a scientist could say but sigh.


What type of scientist? A darwinist, or a creationist?

Science is based on facts and experimental evidences, never on blind beliefs and assertions.

What about...blind chance and unguided natural selection? *g*

I guess that could be a comflict between science and general religion?

You have to be specific. I do beleve that there is disagreement between science and certain types of religions (islam, hinduism, darwinism, atheism, pantheism, etc), however, I don't think there is a conflict between science and Christianity. The overwhelming Christian presence among the ranks of scientists during the scientific revolution is one evidence in favor of my above statement.